MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979381021 · doi:10.1080/10643380500531171

Risk Analysis Strategies in the Water Utility Sector: An Inventory of Applications for Better and More Credible Decision Making

2006· article· en· W1979381021 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brian H. MacGillivray, Paul D. Hamilton, J. E. Strutt, Simon Pollard

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Water NetworkAmerican Water Works Association Research Foundation
KeywordsRestructuringRisk managementRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessAsset (computer security)Competition (biology)Water utilityFinanceWater supplyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial pressures, regulatory reform, and sectoral restructuring are requiring water utilities to move from technically inclined, risk-averse management approaches toward more commercial, business-oriented practices. Risk analysis strategies and techniques traditionally applied to public health protection are now seeing broader application for asset management, assessing competition risks, and potential threats to the security of supplies. Water utility managers have to consider these risks alongside one another, employ a range of techniques, and devise business plans that prioritize resources on the basis of risk. We present a comprehensive review of risk analysis and management strategies for application in the water utility sector at the strategic, program, and operational levels of decision making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and TechnologySame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207